The industrial revolution was made possible by the invention of many different types of machines and other complicated equipment. One significant invention, the boiler, provided the means to convert water in steam, which is still used to power selected motors and to heat mixtures. Modem boilers include many different types of vessels used to heat water, hydrocarbons, and other liquids. These boilers range from simple residential water heaters to complicated oil refinery cracking towers.
In addition, the pressure vessel enabled the evolution of sophisticated chemical processes that must take place under high pressure or under vacuum. Pressure vessels became increasingly important as our understanding of chemistry and chemical reactions grew. Today, pressure vessels are used in the production processes of virtually every manufacturing industry.
As a consequence of their usefulness, pressure vessels, and boilers have become relatively common equipment. In fact, a large university can house over 900 of these objects. The prevalence of these objects along with the inherent associated danger mandate that these objects be manufactured and operated safely.
In the 1800s, boiler and pressure vessel explosions were common. Several explosions that resulted in significant loss of life prompted the adoption of codes that dictated the design specifications and performance requirements for new equipment. Gradually various states, municipalities, and other jurisdictions adopted these codes and mandated the continued evaluation and inspection of existing equipment. Most of these jurisdictions established laws to enforce the codes.
In most states, the laws specified that the insurance company covering the equipment against property loss must provide licensed inspectors to examine the equipment and report the inspection results to the jurisdiction. Obviously, the insurance companies have a vested interest in assuring the safe operation of these objects. Government inspectors perform the inspections and reporting tasks on non-insured equipment. The frequency of these inspections is based upon the size and type of the vessel and can vary from twice per year to once every three years.
The current process for reporting the inspections is done with paper forms supplied by the jurisdiction in which the vessel is located. An administrator at the insurance company manages the active policies, which have boiler and pressure vessel coverage. The administrator determines the inspections' due dates and allocates the inspections among the company's inspectors authorized in the subject jurisdiction. The administrator copies and sends the inspector the form or information from the prior years, if available. The inspector makes the inspection, fills out the form, and sends it to the designated office within the insurance company. The designated office makes a copy and forwards the original to the appropriate jurisdictional department for review.
Each insurance company has a multiple forms arriving each day from its inspectors. The home office personnel must determine which forms go to which jurisdictions, which files get which copies, and track down the files, etc. Approximately 15% of the inspections are not approved by the jurisdiction upon the first review. The jurisdictional reviewer will note the changes required and transmit the form back to the insurance company. The insurance company routes the transmittal back to the inspector, who completes the work in a manner acceptable by the jurisdiction. Upon acceptance of the inspection, the jurisdiction grants a certificate of compliance.
The paper flow method is very cumbersome, time consuming, inefficient, and involves many steps. The process has a high cost related to the submission of inspection data including the costs associated the mailings, filings, routing, reviews, and lost paperwork. The current practices generally results in many inefficiencies such as multiple data entry and non-optimal scheduling of upcoming inspections. Furthermore, the current system has significant costs associated with inaccurate data resulting in late inspections and multiple revisits.
The aforementioned problems are further compounded when a company switches insurance carriers. In this situation, the insurance company does not have access to historical data and begins building its own separate files. The lack of historical data dramatically increases the chances for the need for a re-inspection. In addition, all background information must be collected and re-entered, which increase the odds of poor data. Due to the competitive nature of the insurance business, companies may switch insurance carriers on a non-infrequent basis.
Several solutions have been attempted to solve some of the problems associated with the paper transfer process. Some states have tried to develop their own jurisdictional software. However, there exists over 60 regulated jurisdictions including states, municipalities, and Canadian provinces. In this situation, many difficulties arise because there is not a common insurance company interface or program. It would be extremely expensive and difficult for the insurance companies to support and maintain the multitude of interfaces required. In addition, user interface for the inspectors will not be consistent. Cross-company reporting would be extremely difficult. Furthermore, it is expensive for each jurisdiction to develop, roll out, and maintain separate software programs.
Another option is electronic jurisdiction interfaces. Clearly, this method is extremely costly for each entity to develop their own software. Except for the largest insurance carriers, the cost may be prohibitive. Insurance companies would have to support up to 67 different formats, which could be worse than a paper system. In addition, the jurisdictions will be slow to embrace the process, making it terribly inefficient and expensive until a substantial majority of the jurisdictions allow the process. Further complicating the process is the variable domains and data fields required by each different jurisdiction. It is extremely unlikely that the jurisdiction will agree on common data types and domains. Additionally, flat data files are non-hierarchical in nature, which can create update difficulties. Clearly, the data transfer is not-in real time and any workflow support would be minimal. Moreover, in an electronic data transfer system, additional features are not easy to add. In addition, many governors are mandating web applications for governmental functions.
Clearly, a need exists for an efficient, economical process for the transfer of information between jurisdictions and the entities that are mandated to perform required activities.